Great, thanks for addressing this so quickly!

Hello, are you sure there are traffic signals at this crossing? It doesn't look like there are from the Bing street-level imagery or aerials.

Ah sorry to hear that! If it's OK with you, I (or you) can reach out to the Data Working Group, data@openstreetmap.org. They have tools to handle these kind of vandalism issues by mass-reverting the affected objects. Then folks like me will probably stop pinging you. Glad you've regained control of your account though, sorry about the hassle!

Sorry, what's going on here? Seems to be a spam link in note=* for a bunch of restaurants and roads?

Hey, thanks for monitoring these! Just in case you're not aware, there's an ongoing OSM community effort among locals in the area to switch the Better Bus routes in for the old routes, which we're keeping track of here: osm.wiki/Washington_DC/Better_Bus_Network. One thing to note is that since some of the new routes closely parallel discontinued ones, it's nice to keep the old ones in OSM until the replacement route has been mapped. For instance, it was really handy to have the Z8 relation when I was mapping the new M54. I took care of the ones you deleted in this changeset earlier this evening (as maybe you saw), but just something to be aware of! Feel free to join in if you see any routes missing!

Hi, it looks like this bank is already mapped at this location! node/12342520794. Please make sure to check that the location isn't already there when you add things to the map. Thanks!
~willkmis

Hey, I reverted this change in changeset/166573750. I recently went through this intersection and it's been reconfigured from what appears on aerial imagery. In other words OSM was more up-to-date than the available imagery. In the future it might be good to check for tags like demolished:highway=footway before readding something, since I left that as a hint that the aerial imagery is out of date.

OK, that makes sense. I mostly didn't like that there were two park objects mapped on top of each other. Based on what you said, I removed leisure=park from the Estate and retagged it as historic=estate (only 8 uses per taginfo, but I couldn't find a better historic=* tag): changeset/166497969. I also added some additional tagging for its NRHP status. Let me know if that looks reasonable.

Hi, I noticed you added a new park here for the Tregaron Conservancy. The whole estate including the school was already mapped as a park: way/295652629. These seem redundant, did you mean to add a duplicate? Or should the old one be deleted/retagged? I'm not sure if the school is technically part of the conservancy or not...

No worries! That's totally the format of typical descriptive OSM trail names, so it's understandable to usually be removing stuff like that on sight.

Hey it looks like you removed (Strenuous) and (Moderate) from the names of the branches of the Western Ridge Trail. I was by here recently and it's worth noting that these aren't just ad hoc descriptions, they're actually signed on the ground. Here's a photo of the sign (node/12259289996) at one end: https://npplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Rock-Creek-130.jpg.

I don't know if there's a better way than parentheses to include them, but I do think Strenuous and Moderate belong in the OSM names somewhere.

Hello, I noticed that this and some of your other imports nearby seem to have added duplicate nodes for Hudson Bay surrounding the island: node/11984448996, node/11984440129, node/11986418090, node/11986478828. Were these meant to be something else, or can they be safely deleted?

It appears this is the case with all your recent edits. This area's buildings were fairly completely mapped already, other mappers have just already changed the buildings to destroyed:building. Probably all your recent changesets in this area should be reverted.

Hi, please note that you are mapping buildings on top of buildings that have already been marked as destroyed. For instance: way/1350607793 duplicates way/420509388. Please check to make sure a destroyed:building does not already exist before mapping. I think this changeset should be reverted.

Hi, just FYI that building=destroyed is not a supported way of tagging a destroyed building. I've changed them to destroyed:building=yes, following the wiki guidance (osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix), in changeset/161171074.

Hi, can you clarify what source you're using for this information? In an uncertain environment, I think the last thing we want to do as OSM is to communicate that houses have been destroyed without firm evidence. I also don't think that name=Wildfire damage is exactly right, maybe destroyed:by= or something?

Bethesda is not a town boundary, it is a CDP. There probably should not be a border_type or place tag on this boundary TBH

No problem! I don't think it's particularly urgent

Hey thanks for importing these, great to have better bus stop coverage in DC! I did notice one thing about these nodes, however: it looks like you haven't added the typical PTv2 tagging, namely public_transport=platform + bus=yes. Was there a reason you skipped these? Beyond prompting a warning in iD for each node asking to add them, I think some renderers and transit analysis programs might use these tags rather than highway=bus_stop.

Huh, that random rectangle in the middle of a TV studio is a weird one. But looking at other official maps, like https://data.lacity.org/City-Infrastructure-Service-Requests/City-Boundary-of-Los-Angeles/ppge-zfr4, it seems real! I guess it's just one parcel that never got annexed for some reason, though I wasn't able to find any specific information about it anywhere. It should probably be an "inner" member of the Los Angeles city relation.